William Brandon Roundtree v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 27, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-1853
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 27 2020, 6:46 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Mark K. Leeman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Logansport, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Robert L. Yates Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William Brandon Roundtree, February 27, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1853 v. Appeal from the Cass Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable James Appellee-Plaintiff Muehlhausen, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 09D01-1812-F6-435

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1853 | February 27, 2020 Page 1 of 5 [1] William Roundtree pleaded guilty to theft as a Level 6 felony. At sentencing,

the trial court ordered Roundtree to pay his victim $375.08 in restitution and

sentenced Roundtree to a fully executed two-and-a-half-year confinement at the

Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). On appeal, Roundtree contends that

his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his

character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] On September 27, 2018, Roundtree entered a Logansport Rural King store with

no merchandise in his possession and gathered various tools from the store’s

shelves. He proceeded to take those tools to the service desk where he presented

the cashier with receipts from a Frankfort Rural King for the exact items he

gathered in the Logansport store. Roundtree then returned a blower and

received a $171.18 cash refund. He also exchanged a $199.00 trimmer for a

$129.00 trimmer and received a $74.90 cash refund for the price difference.

Ultimately, Roundtree walked into the store with nothing and walked out with

the store’s cash and merchandise totaling $375.08.

[4] On December 10, 2018, the State charged Roundtree with one count of theft

enhanced to a Level 6 felony based upon a prior conviction. Roundtree pleaded

guilty without a plea agreement. At sentencing, the trial court ordered

Roundtree to pay his victim restitution and sentenced Roundtree to a fully

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1853 | February 27, 2020 Page 2 of 5 executed two-and-a-half-year confinement at the DOC. Roundtree now

appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[5] Despite the fact that the trial court imposed a sentence that is authorized by

statute, we may revise Roundtree’s sentence if, after due consideration of the

trial court’s decision, we find that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the

nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule

7(B). The determination of whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate

“turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime,

the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a

given case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). In making this

determination, the relevant considerations are the length of the aggregate

sentence and how it is to be served. Id. Roundtree bears the burden of

persuading our court that his sentence is inappropriate. See Conley v. State, 972

N.E.2d 864, 876 (Ind. 2012).

[6] When considering the nature of the offense, the advisory sentence is the starting

point for determining the appropriateness of a sentence. Anglemyer v. State, 868

N.E.2d 482, 494 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh’g 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007).

Roundtree pleaded guilty to a Level 6 felony. The sentencing range for a Level

6 felony is six months to two and a half years, with the advisory sentence of one

year, and the trial court may also impose a fine up to $10,000. Ind. Code § 35-

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1853 | February 27, 2020 Page 3 of 5 50-2-7(b). Roundtree received the maximum incarceration sentence of two and

a half years to be served at the DOC.

[7] Roundtree does not challenge the length of his sentence. Instead he challenges

the trial court’s decision to order his sentence executed at the DOC. “The place

that a sentence is to be served is an appropriate focus for application of our

review and revise authority.” Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407, 414 (Ind.

2007). However, it is “quite difficult for a defendant to prevail on a claim that

the placement of his or her sentence is inappropriate.” Fonner v. State, 876

N.E.2d 340, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “As a practical matter, trial courts know

the feasibility of alternative placements in particular counties and

communities.” Id. Trial courts are “aware of the availability, costs, and

entrance requirements of community corrections placements in a specific

locale.” Id. at 344.

[8] The trial court found nothing extraordinary about the nature of Roundtree’s

offense. We recognize that Roundtree pleaded guilty to a single act of theft

without a plea deal; however, the facts show a pattern of sophisticated planning

that raises heightened concerns.

[9] Turning to his character, we commend Roundtree for correcting the trial court’s

restitution determination to a higher amount, but we cannot ignore his criminal

history. In 1997, he was convicted of criminal conversion and receiving stolen

property. In 2001, he was convicted of burglary and sentenced to probation.

Roundtree violated probation five times before finally being revoked from

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1853 | February 27, 2020 Page 4 of 5 probation and remanded back to the DOC custody for the remainder of his

sentence. In 2012, Roundtree was convicted of auto theft, and in March 2018,

he was convicted of another theft.

[10] Roundtree asked the trial court to place him on community corrections so he

could continue to work and have part of his earnings garnished for his

dependents. Although we are not unsympathetic to the hardship imposed on

Roundtree’s dependents by his incarceration, Roundtree has already

demonstrated that he is either unwilling or unable to follow the court’s terms

when given the chance to serve a sentence outside the DOC’s watchful eye.

Thus, he has not persuaded us that his placement at the DOC, instead of

community corrections, is inappropriate.

[11] Judgment affirmed.

Robb, J. and Bradford, C.J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1853 | February 27, 2020 Page 5 of 5